While I would gladly not hear it again for a couple of years, I am still willing to recognize that the CAUCASIAN SKETCHES is a fun and well-crafted piece. What else did Ippolitov-Ivanov write? As a 19th century Russian, I'm sure that he wrote concerti, operas, ballets and symphonies, right?

Because of the widespread popularity of pieces such as PICTURES AT AN EXHIBITION, SCHEHERAZADE and, of course, CAUCASIAN SKETCHES, there is a widespread but inaccurate belief that all Russian composers--simply because they are Russian--are ipso facto worthy colleagues and compatriots of Chaikovskii. The fact is, if you tried to make a complete list of ALL THE RUSSIAN COMPOSERS WHO TRULY MEASURE UP TO CHAIKOVSKII, the result would be a list so brief that it would not fill half of an index card.

dulcinea wrote:Because of the widespread popularity of pieces such as PICTURES AT AN EXHIBITION, SCHEHERAZADE and, of course, CAUCASIAN SKETCHES, there is a widespread but inaccurate belief that all Russian composers--simply because they are Russian--are ipso facto worthy colleagues and compatriots of Chaikovskii. The fact is, if you tried to make a complete list of ALL THE RUSSIAN COMPOSERS WHO TRULY MEASURE UP TO CHAIKOVSKII, the result would be a list so brief that it would not fill half of an index card.

Uh oh, now you've got Karl Henning on your case.

There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself.
-- Johann Sebastian Bach

The fact is, if you tried to make a complete list of ALL THE RUSSIAN COMPOSERS WHO TRULY MEASURE UP TO CHAIKOVSKII, the result would be a list so brief that it would not fill half of an index card.

True, Dulcinea, it is a point of view. But I'm sure you agree that music is neither sports, nor games - where it usually matters to have a winner. In music I find it less important to crown a "hero", especially in 19th century Russia.

dulcinea wrote:Because of the widespread popularity of pieces such as PICTURES AT AN EXHIBITION, SCHEHERAZADE and, of course, CAUCASIAN SKETCHES, there is a widespread but inaccurate belief that all Russian composers--simply because they are Russian--are ipso facto worthy colleagues and compatriots of Chaikovskii. The fact is, if you tried to make a complete list of ALL THE RUSSIAN COMPOSERS WHO TRULY MEASURE UP TO CHAIKOVSKII, the result would be a list so brief that it would not fill half of an index card.

The first time I heard Rimsky-Korsakov, and especially Glazounov, I was thunderstruck by the realization that not every Russian composer wallowed in such navel-gazing as Tchaikovsky. Don't get me wrong. I think Tchaikovsky is the greatest of the Russians, regardless of era, and by far the most psychologically reflective (he is the musical Dostoyevsky). But that much self-exposure is taxing on the listener. He wears me out: nobody could be that unhappy. Gimme R-K, Glazounov, or Kalinnikov for sheer undemanding tonal beauty.

...
With Mussorgsky it is hard to escape the "what might have been" factor: If only he had not been bedeviled by alcohol. If only he had possessed greater self-discipline. If only he had received better musical training. And yet such regrets lead us nowhere. We must accept Mussorgsky (as David Brown does in this indispensable guide) on his own terms, and in his own time. His influence on the future — on such great composers of the twentieth century as Sergei Prokofiev, Leos Janácek and Dmitri Shostakovich — was enormous and gratefully acknowledged. But then Mussorgsky was well aware that he never belonged only to the present: "the artist believes in the future because he lives in it."

Rimskii-Korsakov, Rachmaninov, Prokofiev and Shostakovich. Who from our time--such as Gubaidulina--deserve to share their company? My deepest apologies; how could I forget Stravinskii? He spent so much of his life as an exile that I forgot he was Russian.

Last edited by dulcinea on Tue May 23, 2006 12:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The fact is, if you tried to make a complete list of ALL THE RUSSIAN COMPOSERS WHO TRULY MEASURE UP TO CHAIKOVSKII, the result would be a list so brief that it would not fill half of an index card.

Well, Mussorgsky is a much greater composer than Tchaikovsky. The same applies to Stravinsky.
And Rimsky-Korsakov best operas (Tzar Saltan, Kitege, Le coq d'or) are not inferior to Eugene Oneguin or the Queen of Spades.
Borodin 2nd Quartet is superior to the best quartets (nºs 1 and 3) composed by Tchaikovsky.
Prokofiev Romeo and Juliet is, in my opinion, superior to Tchaikovsky ballets. His 5th Symphony or Shostakotvitch 8th and 14th Symphonies are, at least, at the level of Tchaikovsky last three Symphonies.

My deepest apologies; I should have included Stravinskii. He spent so much of his life in exile that I forgot he was Russian. An interesting ethnic fact: Russians whose names end in ich and skii are of Polish ancestry. Will the Russians ever acknowledge the huge cultural debt they owe to the Poles?

dulcinea wrote:My deepest apologies; I should have included Stravinskii. He spent so much of his life in exile that I forgot he was Russian. An interesting ethnic fact: Russians whose names end in ich and skii are of Polish ancestry. Will the Russians ever acknowledge the huge cultural debt they owe to the Poles?

I didn't know that, but I would agree that (excuse me, years of habit here) Stravinsky is the one Russian composer who can lay a claim against Tchaikovsky. Mussorgsky? I don't think so.

There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself.
-- Johann Sebastian Bach

No, I am not. I love Tchaikovsky's Queen of Spades. In my opinion it is the third best russian opera ever composed. The first two? Boris and Khovantchina.

Speaking generally, de gustibus and all that, but Mussorgsky was pretty much a one-hit wonder in the operatic field and the orchestral field, and without Ravel's reorchestration of Bald Mountain, he wouldn't have been even that in the orchestral field. Tchiakovsky mastered many genres, including symphony, concerto, ballet, solo piano, opera, chamber music, and song. IMO, there's no comparison between the two. None.

And do you know Mussorgsky songs?

Yes, but again, the output - both operatic and lieder -was extremely limited to stand comparison with Tchaikovsky.

Regarding Stravinsky, is it necessary to remind the Rite of Spring, Petrushka, Renard, Les Noces, the Mass, the Symphony in three movements?

Again, de gustibus. Stravinsky is interesting and his influence on post WW1 music, esp. in France, is undeniable, but the output of masterpieces is far too restricted to stand in the ring with Tchaikovsky's.

While most of these exercises in "The Best . . . " are based purely on subjective opinion, there are sometimes objective standards that can be invoked. This instance is one of those times.

I found this quote in a book on twentieth century music by Peter Yates (Allen & Unwin , London 1968) :
"Of Moussorgsky, Claude Debussy wrote : " No one has ever appealed to the best that is in us in deeper or more tender expression. He is unique and will remain so, for his art is free from artifice or arid formulas. Never was refined sensitivity interpreted by such simple means. It is like the art of an inquisitive savage who discovers music at every step made by his emotions....this form is so manifold that it cannot possibly be likened to the recognised or orthodox forms. It is achieved by little consecutive touches linked by a mysterious bond. ..."
And :
" Mussorgsky ,an inspired amateur, filled out the Italian design with native Slavic melody, musically set conversational and declamatory Russian speech, the clangor of bells, to create an art completely his own - so much so that, after his death, Rimsky Korsakov softened the musical idiom to make it harmonicallypolite. It is not the harmony but the unique sounds of Moussorgsky 's art that signify. "
As so often with the "realy great"artists( well, that is how history sees them)I find no compelling use in comparing them. "History" has put both Tsaikovski and Mussorgsky firmly on the map, including weakness and strenght. I think that it is fair to say that Mssorgsky has had an enormous influence on later generations of composers - and definitely not only in France! He was neither a pre-impressionist, nor a pre -expressionist. He was a strange original who went his own ,rugged way.
PS : Night on Bald mountain exists in a version re-worked by Rimsky Korsakov. Corlyss is ,of course ,referring to "Pictures at an exhibition" ,when speaking of Ravel as orchestrator.

Last edited by PJME on Thu May 25, 2006 9:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

Alas, even a German -sprecher will have a hard time. My German is good enough to understand that something is quite wrong.
I fear that it is a bad translation (from Russian?)
anyway, I'll let Ippolitov sleep in peace.